Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) Post-Release Discussion
As usual, Paul C gets it.


(09-21-2018, 05:13 AM)rexbanner Wrote:
(09-20-2018, 07:52 PM)Bucho Wrote:
(09-20-2018, 06:31 PM)rexbanner Wrote: 1. It's not a totally apt comparison. A Star Wars film every year is the equivalent of releasing an Avengers film every year, and people would start to tire of it. Marvel's more like a genre than it is a series.

2. Marvel's world is Earth with some changes, and it's films are (usually) lighter and more stand-alone than a Star Wars film. Your average Marvel film is more accessible to the average random on the street than any Star Wars film bar ANH or TFA.

3. Marvel is based on comic book storytelling - the main goal is building a world that's fun to spend time in, whereas Star Wars was conceived of and *completed* as a single story. As a long story, Star Wars relies (completely reasonably) in large part on its baggage; as a world with arcs that happen, climax, and peter out, Marvel's backstory and baggage is a fun extra. Star Wars is a story, whereas Marvel is a cinematic universe.

1. It's not the equivalent of an Avengers film every year at all Rex. We've already seen with our own space binoculars that it isn't, since Rogue One was a very different type of Star Wars film to any which had preceded it. It was even more disconnected from its ongoing group of heroes than anything Marvel has yet had the balls to make. Lucasfilm have already launched at the 1 per year rate and we've already seen that it hasn't taken the form, nor feeling, of an Avengers every year.

Aaaaaand, there's also nothing preventing them from following the Marvel model and putting out 4 or 5 films between each Episode/Avengers/Team-up featuring characters who are going to appear in the Episodes.

2. The highest ranked MCU flick on the All Time Box Office Adjusted list is "Marvel's The Avengers" at #29.

There are FIIIIVE Star Wars films in the Top 20.

The average random on the street gets Star Wars just fine.

3. There has never, in the history of EVER, been a story more known for its world-building than Star Wars and there has never in the history of ever been a world that is more fun to spend time in. The MCU dreams of being able to build a world one quarter as compelling and rich as what Star Wars has accomplished for decades. The success of Star Wars is based very solidly in its A+ world building. The success of Marvel is rooted in character much more than it is world-building, hence nobody giving a crap about the TV shows.

Aaaaaand the Star Wars saga was in fact NOT "conceived of and *completed* as a single story". It was famously conceived and created a piece or two at a time.

Aaaaaand there was nothing preventing Lucasfilm from dreaming up this new phase of Star Wars as a single story. I mean, are you even sure you want to peel this particular scab off?

1. What I mean is, a single Star Wars film is meant to have the dramatic heft of one of the MCU's event, Avengers films. Whatever you felt of Rogue One, the story was very dramatic and - while obviously not necessary - tied completely to some of the biggest ideas and most beloved dynamics from the original film: the fledgling Rebellion and the evil Empire, and the Death Star. 'How did a young man in his 20s do all the things we know he did and become a cool man in his 30s?' isn't that dramatic a hook. As an SW obsessive I saw it on the second night and will buy it on blu-ray, but I wasn't remotely as excited for seeing Han's backstory as I was about seeing the Death Star plans get nicked or finding out what Luke's been up to. And if I felt a relative lack of interest, I imagine normies felt a similarly gap.  

2. The average viewer gets Star Wars just fine, you're completely right: but Star Wars is Luke Skywalker, Anakin/Darth Vader, and now their descendants. People have connected with and love that storyline as much as any work of fiction ever made. But the average person on the street doesn't give a shit about Mandalorians, what Yoda was up to as a kid, or the Old Republics' wars against the Sith, or how Jabba ran his underworld. You could attempt to make the audience care about those things, but you'd be asking them to care about nerdy minutiae that typically only hardcore fans pick up on and think about. 

Star Wars was built - planned or not - focusing on those core characters and stories, and the universe developed around serving that; Marvel was built as a universe in which umpteen different lead characters could have their own adventures, and the massive, weighty, crossover stories happened within that. Spider-man, Iron Man, Captain America, the X-men, the Fantastic Four, Captain Marvel, Thor, Daredevil, the Incredible Hulk - these characters are their own protagonists with their own roster of supporting characters and villains. 

You could try and turn Star Wars into something similar, with, say, three films of Poe battling the First Order and managing Black Squadron; three films of Rey and Luke chasing up the mysteries of the Force; three films of Finn struggling with PTSD and battling/helping other former stormtroopers; a single, experimental film with Kylo Ren climbing the ranks of the First Order. But you'd be turning Star Wars into something it's not entirely for the sake of aping Marvel. 

3. I don't agree with Star Wars's success being rooted in its worldbuilding (a chunk of its roots, sure). The appeal of that universe is a huge part of it - no question - but it's firmly in second place to the appeal of that core story line. The world is amazing and fun enough to spend time in for the millions of nerds (like me) whose imagination it captured, but there's only enough of us to get Solo $380 million.

3. The point is the Star Wars to MCU comparison. Star Wars has been celebrated for decades for Lucas's world-building. Nothing the MCU has done in terms of world-building has come close. It hasn't come even close to close. Star Wars is the definition of a "universe the audience loves to escape to". You said yourself Marvel got big with what was really just a gussied up version of Earth.

Both are rooted in characters first and foremost. Neither are telling stories which haven't been told before or since, but these particular tellings catch fire because they tell those old stories well with characters who are super easy to fall in love with. But the MCU achieved mega-success with Avengers, a movie which takes place on a single planet, telling a tale of 6 heroes, 5 of whom are Earth-bound. To argue that the "universe" of Star Wars' Galaxy Far, Far Away is not orders of magnitude more significant to its story is - and I don't use this word lightly - bonkers.

2. In another post somewhere you say you wish fans could be happy with a Star Wars every 2-3 years, and - to be clear - I could be. What I'm getting at is that Star Wars is that not fundamentally different from the MCU. There is nothing about what Star Wars IS, at its foundation, than prevents them from telling their saga in a similar manner to how Marvel's story is being told. Both are rooted in characters first and foremost. Everything else - hero's journeys, world-building, foley work - means nothing without characters with whom the audience can fall in love.

If anything, because Star Wars came with the aforementioned beloved, epic galaxy in which to play, Star Wars was even more suited to the MCU style of multi-character story than the MCU was. Avengers Assemble has a team of 6 heroes, 5 of whom come out of stories which are Earth-bound. Star Wars, infinitely more expansive than the MCU in world-building terms, came with no such limitations.

Lucas's 3-year cycle was a function of availability of resources (not only physical, but emotional), much more that it was a function of some fundamental, saga-defining notion of sequelized cinematic storytelling technique. You can show an 8-year old all three OT films over the course of 3 days and if they're the right kind of kid they fall in love with them just fine. What Star Wars IS is not defined by that 3-year cycle. Taking it out of that and into an MCU type cycle wouldn't "break" Star Wars as long as they maintained the things which made Star Wars Star Wars in the first place - splendid characters galavanting about in a splendid galaxy they were trying to save.

1. Even IF I go with you on Rogue One though Rex, the Solo example still stands in direct contradiction of this idea. How can we claim every single Star Wars movie is intended to have the same dramatic heft while our tiny sample contains Solo, a movie which is clearly intended to exist on a much smaller and more personal scale than either of the Episodes?
Reply
I can't follow these lists!
I might have been born yesterday sir, but I stayed up all night!
Reply
(09-21-2018, 07:21 AM)Evi Wrote: I think people forget that all of Marvel's properties had already shown some measure of success. Not that they weren't taking a gamble, but whether we're talking Iron Man or Guardians, they already had existing characters, tons of mythology to draw on and enough of an idea about what people found appealing throughout the years. Star Wars on the other hand is in a weird position where the original ensemble is showing diminishing returns but they don't have many alternative sources to draw on. So they're stuck having to invent new characters and situations wholesale and I'm not sure they're happy with the results so far.

I don't think it's that it's forgotten Evi, so much as that it's dismissed or underplayed because the "measure of success" is the relatively tiny comic book industry. I'm definitely guilty of this one, because I read enough shitty comic book storylines in my day that I gave up on the artform altogether, and as a result I find myself assuming that if even a dork like me can't stay engaged with those mythologies and characters then a "normie" is going to give even less of a shit about them, so I wonder at that point what those existing "failed" mythologies and characters are even worth to someone who wants to base a series of blockbuster films on them? 

Then there's the thing we've ALL bitched about for nigh on a decade now, about how Marvel villains were pretty zzzz on the whole until very recently, so those of us who've steered away from comicbookdom are all, "Well shee-it, if the comics are so rich with characters and mythology, why were all the bad guys so cack even when they get aces like Bridges and Rourke and Weaving and Rockwell to play them?"

Of course your overall point is solid though. There is enough gold among the crap in comic books that they're a worthwhile source to mine for anyone who wants to get a head start on their new blockbuster screenplay. Some would argue Star Wars itself has a whole EU worth of stories and characters to mine, but I won't. I dismissed them even more snobbily than I dismissed comics.

(09-21-2018, 09:17 AM)Mangy Wrote: Han Solo was my wife's childhood hero.

Your wife has excellent taste in childhood heroes.
Reply
SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY is number one on iTunes again.
Reply
I still haven’t watched it.

Feelin’ fine.
"I'd rather have hope...than nothing at all."
-Illyana Rasputin, X-Men: Omega #1

"But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive."
-Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Twitter: @BartLBishop
Reply
(09-25-2018, 06:11 PM)barry woodward Wrote: SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY is number one on iTunes again.

Well, that's a relief!

But seriously, who gives a shit?
Reply
(09-25-2018, 06:28 PM)bartleby_scriven Wrote: I still haven’t watched it.

Feelin’ fine.

Living your best life. Trust me.
I might have been born yesterday sir, but I stayed up all night!
Reply
(09-25-2018, 06:49 PM)mike j Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 06:11 PM)barry woodward Wrote: SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY is number one on iTunes again.

Well, that's a relief!

But seriously, who gives a shit?

Barry merely transmits.
Reply
Saying that Barry merely transmits is like saying that Niagara Falls only moves water from one place to another.
Reply
I’ve kinda noticed this theme in articles about this which always seems weird to me. In his story notes, Jake Kasdan said that the death of Thandie Newton’s Val ‘felt a little like a cheat’, with io9 (yup, them again) even calling it problematic, and Honest Trailers calling her “the coolest new Star Wars character in years”. I guess I just don’t get it; to me, them leaning into the whole ‘seventies sci-fi’ look with her just seemed silly.

Is Thandie Newton this huge star? I’ve looked at her IMDB page and it doesn’t seem like she’s been in that many big or critically acclaimed movies. I know she’s a main character in Westworld, but that also doesn’t seem like a huge hit. Seems more along the lines of a Black Sails than a Game of Thrones. A critical consensus of “Yeah, it’s good, but let’s not lose our minds or anything.”

I don’t know, it’s like going to see a Mission: Impossible movie, Rainn Wilson shows up in a minor role, gets killed off, then when I get home, I find out that the entire internet is aghast that Tom Cruise killed OUR Rainn Wilson!

Then again, I also didn’t get the Justice For Barb thing.
I'm still avian.
Reply
(09-21-2018, 12:00 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Would it actually have made a difference if Disney had done what the 90s nerds wanted and drawn upon the existing Expanded Universe*? I think one reason the Marvel films resonate as well as they do is that they honor or at least reference the decades of comic-book storytelling that preceded them.

Storytelling that the vast majority of people who have made the MCU films hits have little to no knowledge of.  They might know Spidey's origin and who Captain America is, but Joe SixPack didn't walk out of Civil War going, "Hey, that was a pretty deft adaptation of the original crossover!"
My karmic debt must be huge.

----------

My blog: An Embarrassment of Rich's
Reply
(09-25-2018, 07:44 PM)thecooleravian Wrote: I’ve kinda noticed this theme in articles about this which always seems weird to me. In his story notes, Jake Kasdan said that the death of Thandie Newton’s Val ‘felt a little like a cheat’, with io9 (yup, them again) even calling it problematic, and Honest Trailers calling her “the coolest new Star Wars character in years”. I guess I just don’t get it; to me, them leaning into the whole ‘seventies sci-fi’ look with her just seemed silly.

Is Thandie Newton this huge star? I’ve looked at her IMDB page and it doesn’t seem like she’s been in that many big or critically acclaimed movies. I know she’s a main character in Westworld, but that also doesn’t seem like a huge hit. Seems more along the lines of a Black Sails than a Game of Thrones. A critical consensus of “Yeah, it’s good, but let’s not lose our minds or anything.”

I don’t know, it’s like going to see a Mission: Impossible movie, Rainn Wilson shows up in a minor role, gets killed off, then when I get home, I find out that the entire internet is aghast that Tom Cruise killed OUR Rainn Wilson!

Then again, I also didn’t get the Justice For Barb thing.

Just ignore the film media/critic industry and you'll lose almost nothing of value.  

(09-25-2018, 07:47 PM)Richard Dickson Wrote:
(09-21-2018, 12:00 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Would it actually have made a difference if Disney had done what the 90s nerds wanted and drawn upon the existing Expanded Universe*? I think one reason the Marvel films resonate as well as they do is that they honor or at least reference the decades of comic-book storytelling that preceded them.

Storytelling that the vast majority of people who have made the MCU films hits have little to no knowledge of.  They might know Spidey's origin and who Captain America is, but Joe SixPack didn't walk out of Civil War going, "Hey, that was a pretty deft adaptation of the original crossover!"

I dunno ... I think most folks have a pretty good idea of who and what most of these comic book characters are about.
[Image: latest?cb=20130405010724]
Reply
(09-25-2018, 06:49 PM)mike j Wrote: But seriously, who gives a shit?

I only care to the extent that it doing well on home video might convince Disney/Lucasfilm to make some kind of continuation with the cast. The recent news about Marvel Studios doing limited series on Disney Play (that's the name of their new streaming service) with actors from the films seems to be a viable way to go for the Star Wars Story series.
Reply
No, Barry.
Reply
You're telling me you wouldn't be interested in a six episode Lando limited series written by Donald Glover and directed by Hiro Murai?
Reply
Restraining bolt-- on or off?
Reply
(09-25-2018, 07:44 PM)thecooleravian Wrote: I’ve kinda noticed this theme in articles about this which always seems weird to me. In his story notes, Jake Kasdan said that the death of Thandie Newton’s Val ‘felt a little like a cheat’, with io9 (yup, them again) even calling it problematic, and Honest Trailers calling her “the coolest new Star Wars character in years”. I guess I just don’t get it; to me, them leaning into the whole ‘seventies sci-fi’ look with her just seemed silly.

Is Thandie Newton this huge star? I’ve looked at her IMDB page and it doesn’t seem like she’s been in that many big or critically acclaimed movies. I know she’s a main character in Westworld, but that also doesn’t seem like a huge hit. Seems more along the lines of a Black Sails than a Game of Thrones. A critical consensus of “Yeah, it’s good, but let’s not lose our minds or anything.”

I don’t know, it’s like going to see a Mission: Impossible movie, Rainn Wilson shows up in a minor role, gets killed off, then when I get home, I find out that the entire internet is aghast that Tom Cruise killed OUR Rainn Wilson!

Then again, I also didn’t get the Justice For Barb thing.

Oh, fuck Barb.


Re: Thandie, I think its mostly Westworld at this point, which may not have a achieved critical mass like GoT, but certainly has its fanbase.  And she's really quite good in it.
If you're happy, you're not paying attention.

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny: 
Glad that you guys worked that out amongst yourselves.

Reply
(09-25-2018, 08:45 PM)Neil Spurn Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 07:44 PM)thecooleravian Wrote: I’ve kinda noticed this theme in articles about this which always seems weird to me. In his story notes, Jake Kasdan said that the death of Thandie Newton’s Val ‘felt a little like a cheat’, with io9 (yup, them again) even calling it problematic, and Honest Trailers calling her “the coolest new Star Wars character in years”. I guess I just don’t get it; to me, them leaning into the whole ‘seventies sci-fi’ look with her just seemed silly.

Is Thandie Newton this huge star? I’ve looked at her IMDB page and it doesn’t seem like she’s been in that many big or critically acclaimed movies. I know she’s a main character in Westworld, but that also doesn’t seem like a huge hit. Seems more along the lines of a Black Sails than a Game of Thrones. A critical consensus of “Yeah, it’s good, but let’s not lose our minds or anything.”

I don’t know, it’s like going to see a Mission: Impossible movie, Rainn Wilson shows up in a minor role, gets killed off, then when I get home, I find out that the entire internet is aghast that Tom Cruise killed OUR Rainn Wilson!

Then again, I also didn’t get the Justice For Barb thing.

Oh, fuck Barb.


Re: Thandie, I think its mostly Westworld at this point, which may not have a achieved critical mass like GoT, but certainly has its fanbase.  And she's really quite good in it.

Well, she's really quite good in the second season, in which she's arguably the most compelling character with a great arc (I buck the internet zeitgeist in that I probably enjoyed the second season MORE and found the overall storyline to be a fascinating conclusion to the mysteries introduced in season one).  

First season?  Eh.  She spins her wheels most of the time.
[Image: latest?cb=20130405010724]
Reply
(09-25-2018, 07:50 PM)Overlord Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 07:47 PM)Richard Dickson Wrote:
(09-21-2018, 12:00 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Would it actually have made a difference if Disney had done what the 90s nerds wanted and drawn upon the existing Expanded Universe*? I think one reason the Marvel films resonate as well as they do is that they honor or at least reference the decades of comic-book storytelling that preceded them.

Storytelling that the vast majority of people who have made the MCU films hits have little to no knowledge of.  They might know Spidey's origin and who Captain America is, but Joe SixPack didn't walk out of Civil War going, "Hey, that was a pretty deft adaptation of the original crossover!"

I dunno ... I think most folks have a pretty good idea of who and what most of these comic book characters are about.

Right, but having an idea who the characters are isn't exactly having decades of storytelling resonate with an audience.
My karmic debt must be huge.

----------

My blog: An Embarrassment of Rich's
Reply
(09-25-2018, 08:48 PM)Richard Dickson Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 07:50 PM)Overlord Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 07:47 PM)Richard Dickson Wrote:
(09-21-2018, 12:00 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Would it actually have made a difference if Disney had done what the 90s nerds wanted and drawn upon the existing Expanded Universe*? I think one reason the Marvel films resonate as well as they do is that they honor or at least reference the decades of comic-book storytelling that preceded them.

Storytelling that the vast majority of people who have made the MCU films hits have little to no knowledge of.  They might know Spidey's origin and who Captain America is, but Joe SixPack didn't walk out of Civil War going, "Hey, that was a pretty deft adaptation of the original crossover!"

I dunno ... I think most folks have a pretty good idea of who and what most of these comic book characters are about.

Right, but having an idea who the characters are isn't exactly having decades of storytelling resonate with an audience.

A fair point.  I will consider your words.
[Image: latest?cb=20130405010724]
Reply
I guess the joke is that a sequel to Solo would likely be exactly what most of us actually wanted Solo to be - A movie about Han Solo and Chewey in the Falcon. Shame, really.
There are weapons in my hands, my hands are weapons.
Reply
This remains far more entertaining than Rogue One.
Reply
(09-25-2018, 08:48 PM)Richard Dickson Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 07:50 PM)Overlord Wrote:
(09-25-2018, 07:47 PM)Richard Dickson Wrote:
(09-21-2018, 12:00 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Would it actually have made a difference if Disney had done what the 90s nerds wanted and drawn upon the existing Expanded Universe*? I think one reason the Marvel films resonate as well as they do is that they honor or at least reference the decades of comic-book storytelling that preceded them.

Storytelling that the vast majority of people who have made the MCU films hits have little to no knowledge of.  They might know Spidey's origin and who Captain America is, but Joe SixPack didn't walk out of Civil War going, "Hey, that was a pretty deft adaptation of the original crossover!"

I dunno ... I think most folks have a pretty good idea of who and what most of these comic book characters are about.

Right, but having an idea who the characters are isn't exactly having decades of storytelling resonate with an audience.

I think that was part of my point. The MCU films draw upon a shared (or at least agreed-upon) history, and whether you the audience member know that history or not,  that consistency helps hold things together. The new SW films don't seem to share any sort of narrative core.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply


Reply
Man Alden just does NOT work for me. That video just makes me sad.
Reply
Imagine having the downtime to do something like that and then using the downtime to do something like that.
Reply
Ha ha ha
Reply
I spent like, 20 minutes of reloading this broken site in order to read that post Shaun.

I put in the work.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: bailey, 1 Guest(s)